 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.20.1.198
In Reply to: RE: By all means read “The God Delusion.” posted by regmac on August 10, 2008 at 10:01:20
.
Follow Ups:
I’m pleased to learn that you enjoyed my post. Perhaps you will enjoy this one as well. In what follows, Stephen Hawking (no doubt another hero of our hyperventilating friend, RGA) gets skewered a la Richard Dawkins. This is perhaps my favorite Berlinski bitch slap.
“A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology
Q: From what did our universe evolve?
A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg.
Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like?
A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird.
Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions?
A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious.
Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?
A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.
Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe.?
A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.
Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?
A:It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.
Q: When was it there?
A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.
Q: Where did the egg come from?
A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing.
Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there?
A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal.
Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg?
A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things.”
Berlinski goes on to say, “This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It *is* quantum cosmology.
“Readers lacking faith, will, I imagine, wish to know something more about its crucial step, and that is the emergence of a mini-universe from nothing at all. They will be disappointed to learn that insofar as the mini-universe is actual, it did not emerge from nothing, and insofar as it is possible, it did not emerge at all. What can be said about the mini-universe according to either interpretation is that Hawking has designated it as probable because he has assumed that it is probable.
He has done this by restricting the wave function of the universe to just those universes that coincide with the de Sitter universe at their boundaries. This coincidence is all that is needed to produce the desired results. The wave function of the universe and the de sitter mini-universe are made for each other. The subsequent computations indicate the obvious: The universe most likely to be found down there in the sac of time is just the universe Hawking assumed would be found down there. If what Hawking has described is not quite a circle in thought, it does appear to suggest an oblate spheroid.
“The result is guaranteed—one hunnerd percent as used-car salesmen say.”
Krisjan, I sent a copy of Berlinski’s catechism to an acquaintance of mine (a well known theoretical particle physicist) in order to ascertain if Berlinski was giving Hawking’s theory its due. My friend responded by saying that while there is nothing inaccurate insofar as Berlinski’s critique of the theory is concerned, he does not appreciate Berlinski’s “contemptuous” tone. I think it fair to say that while astrophysicists and cosmologists would grudgingly agree with Berlinski on substance, they would demur as to form. Fair enough. :)
I always wonder why religious people think they are OWED the answer to the formation of the universe. Science is wrong because they can;t explain how something formed from nothing. Presumably based on the knowledge that at some time back there was "nothing" - which is a strange assumption to make.
If God can pop into existence out of thin air then why can't the universe? If God always was then why can't the universe or cosmic dust always have been there?
It's funny that you hold the universe to a higher standard than your silly intolerant racist GOD.
.
Interesting.
*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
